Lamb v. District Court, 2010 MT 141 Supervisory control is an appropriate remedy where a District Court stays a bad faith action until the underlying workers’ compensation claim is resolved, and the stay, which is not appealable, will last indefinitely since the claimant will likely require ongoing medical care the rest of her life.  The stay is effectively permanent and tantamount to an injunction, halting all proceedings in the bad faith action and causing a gross injustice to the claimant.


Hegg v. Montana State Fund [10/10/16] 2016 MTWCC 14 The remedy in a case in which workers’ compensation benefits are insufficient to uphold the quid pro quo is to strike the employer’s exclusive remedy defense and allow the employee to proceed with a tort claim – a decision that is solely within the province of the district court in a civil action against the employer.  Where this Court cannot grant the claimant the remedy she seeks – i.e., to increase the amount of her benefits to an amount that would be sufficient – it will not rule on the claimant’s substantive due process challenge against § 39-71-721(2), MCA.

Moreau v. Transportation Ins. Co. [04/08/14] 2014 MTWCC 9 Petitioner, the personal representative of the claimant’s estate, is not entitled to receive the cash value of the medical care which the claimant received and which was paid for by the Libby Medical Plan, which refused Respondent’s attempt to reimburse it.  There is no indication that the Libby Medical Plan has sought or will ever seek reimbursement for the funds it spent on the claimant’s case, and therefore awarding Petitioner the amount would allow a double-recovery.

Peters v. American Zurich Ins. Co. [02/11/14] 2014 MTWCC 4 Where the Court ruled in Petitioner’s favor that he was entitled to have his annual bonus included in his average weekly wage calculation regardless of whether it was paid in the last four pay periods, the Court found no further relief to offer Petitioner when Petitioner asked the Court to reconsider its decision on this issue.

Montana State Fund v. Simms [12/29/10] 2010 MTWCC 41  The Court concluded that an appropriate remedy for State Fund’s dissemination of surveillance footage in violation of the Criminal Justice Information Act would be to exclude from evidence the opinion letter of a treating physician who viewed the surveillance footage and to preclude the consideration of any opinions derived from an IME panel to whom the treating physician’s letter was disclosed.
Thompson v. State of Montana and Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. and Montana State Fund [04/28/06] 2006 MTWCC 19 Intervenor’s argument that if a remedy does not appear in the annotations, it must not be a permissible remedy, is not only a questionable conclusion, it is also an erroneous statement of fact. Remedies aside from “nondisclosure” are included in the annotations to Mont. Const., Art. II, § 10.
Thompson v. State of Montana and Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. and Montana State Fund [04/28/06] 2006 MTWCC 19 Although § 39-71-2905, MCA, states that the penalties and assessments allowed against an insurer under chapter 71 are the exclusive penalties and assessments that can be assessed by the WCC against an insurer for disputes arising under chapter 71, when the respondent in a declaratory judgment action is not an insurer, the WCC is not constrained to the penalties and assessments allowed against insurers under chapter 71.
Beyl v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [12/21/00] 2000 MTWCC 75 Where a claimant presents persuasive evidence from an independent medical examiner that he needs surgery, but the IME physician is unwilling to do the surgery because he believes it would be a conflict of interest to assume the role of claimant's treating physician, and where no other physician has agreed to do the surgery, claimant shall have a reasonable, but not open-ended, time to find a surgeon willing to do the surgery.